Rivkin

Well, sugata is "classic" so it can be anything but signatures towards the back of nakago tend to be koto. The writing does not have shinto feeling to it, but its more forceful with well defined strokes compared to most earlier signatures... Most likely late Muromachi, for example Higo Harukuni or the likes. Decent koshirae, I like the tsuba, I sort of like the wrapping. Its a decent period piece, I don't think its great, but its fun and enjoyable.

I collect iron kozuka and kogai, they tend to be early, these guys are Muromachi, the "namban-ish" style is probably Momoyama.

This used to belong to Bob Hanes.

Does not look bad. I would have send it to be shown to Tanobe sensei and if he feels its good to have it polished and then submitted for papers. As is, I still feel there is some uncertainty.

Thank you for your input. While living there I purchased quite a few items which had torokusho from different swords - daito with torokusho to tanto, a lot of daito with mismatched nagasa, signed blade which was noted as mumei etc. etc.. Comes out when you submit for export and its not a match.

The basic rule is if you see kinzogan to major name but no modern papers, unless the blade is clearly out of the woods - it means there is an issue. It might be a major issue or it might be that the modern attribution is similar, but two notches below, since if its just one notch below it quite often can still be papered. The general accuracy is hard to estimate since anything grossly inaccurate will be considered fake, i.e. "the attribution is wrong so the kao must be fake". And unfortunately Honami Kochu's papers have been faked with extreme accuracy. Part of the reason he also did a lot of attributions. So the acknowledged cases are most limited to Juyo+ blades where a modern sayagaki for example says - yes, kinzogan to x, but its really y. You do see certain patterns where modern attributions clearly diverge from the best Honami standards. There are also Honami whose judgements per se were not up to the standards - Nishu, to the lesser extent Koson, many others. Why there are so many kinzogan without kao, who made those, is not a well researched subject for obvious reasons, i.e. if its not signed, how do we know who did it. Reasonable guess its many side branches of Honami family, but its also of note that engraving kao was considerably (one might even say ridiculously) more expensive work compared to a signature without kao. Its possible that issuing "kinzogan without kao" was a lower cost appraisal option with some later generations.

Yes. Most likely cause is seller having a drawer with a few dozen torokusho from which he takes one at random when he sells something. Since the export requires actual match between torokusho and the goods, when it comes out they don't, it needs to first get new torokusho and then resubmit. If it has higher papers there is an additional trouble potential - they can open an inquest to the province which issued the torokusho and ask it to resolve the mismatch... In case if its provincial bunkazai or something, so that the locals clearly state that they have no particular interest in the blade on their end.

Ok, probably the first photo there was some weird angle which made it look like nakago has a proper finish, this is as o-suriage as they come.

Maybe a bit better. It matters a lot if its a prime level smith or very old sword, otherwise plus-minus. Yes, mumei ubu can be made and attributed.

NBTHK generally does not put "suriage", "o-suriage" etc. on papers. It is probably written "mumei (Takada)" and the rest is seller's narrative.

Its either o-suriage since it has one hole (meaning the original nakago is fully gone) or its ubu. Not with the best nakago finish, maybe moved hamachi and refinished, but mostly ubu. Hamon ending wide is not a reliable indicator of suriage unless its a very old sword or a smith who forged always with hamon ending sharp at hamachi. Sugata might help understanding whether its ubu or not, size-wise it is quite possibly near-ubu since at the time very long blades were uncommon.

I would be interested in buying, however can't offer much - and in the interest of fairness will state publicly why. The signature is near gone and I can't say anything about it, except it does not have strong Tsunahiro (is it even Tsunahiro? my kanji understanding is lacking) characteristics. The sugata is not typical for Tsunahiro lineage, which generally worked within the space defined by 1350-1380 Soshu tanto as defined by Hasebe/Hiromitsu/Masahiro. This is not even Sagami shape per se. Its tired as evident in horimono losses. Out of polish with fingerprints. Such papers are interesting for historic reasons but unfortunately when someone sells a tanto with them few assume it was inherited this way, and many - its a gimei that has been failed by modern shinsa. However it is an interesting old tanto which would be fun to hold in hand and try to kantei what it is. Can it be real Tsunahiro? I personally doubt it, but maybe it is, an unusual one. On a personal note - I like it. There is something about it which is appealing.

Thank you very much! I don't think I see modern NBTHK papers being generous with the name Kanezane assigned to mumei swords. I found online a few NTHK examples, but otherwise it feels like Kaneyoshi, Kanekiyo, even Kanetoshi are the names of choice.

I think it illustrates the point how subjective the "knowledge" can be, especially in a short term. My father once wrote that the only "science" which relies heavily on deduction and formal proof is mathematics, and maybe because of that mathematics might not be a "science" per se - instead of generating knowledge it converts it between equivalent representations. Some of which are arguably more useful than others. Other fields remind me of famous economics paper by a conservative Nobel prize winner which demonstrated strong correlation between nation's debt and GDP growth... except the growth part was dominated by zero debt countries like Somalia. To this point, I would address the issue of "chikei" in a bit different manner. Why use yet another term related to a nie formation? The reason might be is that very high contrast hada with wide black lines can be formed in multiple ways. It can be that the steel has different amount of carbon (high tends to be dark grey) or slag (in polished steel aluminum oxide produces black and phosphorus - deep black color). It can be that its due to martensite formation with a specific size, which does create characteristic black lines, i.e. "chikei". Therefore Houju hada while also black-striped is not seen as per se an advantage since many believe it has considerable "slag content" (though it was never tested afaik), but while in some poor images Norishige might look similar, more often than not it considered a superior steel since the black colored lines are formed by chikei. Overall, chikei is a telltale sign of upper end work, often present in Soshu and some other schools. In a related manner, Inazuma when you just look at it, something "similar" can be produced by folding lines, but if it comes with nie concentration it becomes a sign of upper-upper grade Soshu work.

On the one hand: yes, show it to people and you can probably submit it for papers as is. I have some doubts its a proper Enju signature. Not nearly enough to call it gimei, but enough to scratch my head. Especially since there were other Kuniyoshi smiths (including as strange as it sounds non-meikan ones) and it needs to be investigated a bit more. Sugata-wise its either early Muromachi or mid-late Kamakura. In any case it looks like a solid piece. Seeing boshi in detail + maybe some work if hamon/hada are visible would be helpful.

That is a rare certificate from an early year! Unfortunately, its appraisal is not too trusted nowadays, however it does not come out as crazy. It is a Muromachi tanto; being mumei it can different attributions. I don't think Kanezane is a common attribution today - assuming it does have Yamato traits, maybe it will be attributed to Tegai Kane... (i.e. Kaneyoshi), with a thick kasane and sugata like this Tosa Yoshimitsu is a possibility. Unfortunately, the polish state is not great so its all guesses. Nevertheless out of polish, Muromachi Yamato or related ubu blade is a strong possibility. I can't see how large are condition issues re mounts, but definitely it is the mounts that will impact the valuation considerably. Its an honest late work.

If you can't see a hamon but you can somewhat see hada when looking at an angle its a bad sign. It was probably a magnificent sword but how much of it can be brought back by fresh polish is a big gamble. It can come out well, it can be that what it is right now is the best it will ever be.

Its a rare writing of Yasutsugu (康次) for Sagami lineage, so there is only one entry in Meikan which ends around Tembun (1500-1520)... I am a bit surprised how the blade looks like and don't quite recognize this kind of papers.

Masamune is probably Muromachi Masahiro or the likes (they usually are), this one is probably sue Bizen, but both are wild guesses.

Congrats - the boshi I think is typical for Bizen circa 1510-1550, and nothing else contradicts the conclusion, quite a few things are consistent. Unfortunately its not signed but the attribution is likely to be along the lines of Sukesada, Katsumitsu or Kiyomitsu smiths.

Not being very knowledgeable on Korean weapons but: Its a complex question since there is a variety of blades and koshirae styles. If its blade-wise, first thing I personally look at is nakago. Continental swords in Japanese style are more likely to have either completely flat or at least very low shinogi profile in this area. Contiental tsuba has a rectangular opening, which underlines the difference in nakago profile. Yokote is often shaped differently on continental even if it mimics the Japanese style well, and kossaki proportions are generally expected to be different. Polishing is significantly different and generally jigane is not well accented, but this is often not obvious since there can be no polish remaining. Etc. Etc. Etc. In regards to tsuba - often similar to Hizen Nanban, some examples are very large tosho/katchushi-like pieces, but there was a huge variety of styles throughout the many centuries. Late 16th, early 17th century examples often do have kogai/kozuka ana but they are not functional (very narrow or curved), related to period fashion and appear more often on soft metal (uncommon) examples.

Different people. Long lineage of Soshu Hirotsugu with a typical Sagami Hiro name, and a short lineage of Hizen Hirotsugu which is related to it but Kambun+. Entirely possible a student of Hizen Hirotsugu - unrecorded Hizen Hirofusa. Seen dozens of unrecorded smiths, currently own a few. Somewhat more common with periods like 1700 when many smiths were forced to abandon trade and not much information exists about them.

Here Hozon does unusual thing - identifies the period and the province and the name. This suggests to me its not a Meikan smith, but they felt he is important enough to identify correctly rather than just say "worthy of preservation, shinto Hirofusa". When did he work - is a good question, boshi and sugata can help. It could be that one can see Tegai elements here - nijuba etc, but first its done in itame blade, second its structured a bit differently - as a large, well defined gap within the hamon, something which became really popular with Inoue Shinkai, its possible this blade is 1660-1700. Also I think one can consider options its a style of Hizen rather than Hizen province proper.

Looks like serious stuff.

I would put 1c in trust in any Japanese seller's stock. Their culture in 99% its on you to understand what happens. On the one hand - its seems to be a minor enough name to wonder why would someone fake it. On the other - the signature is poorly written. Can be that it reflects the smith's skill, but generally short, condensed signature with strikes from different kanji literally piling on top of each other - is a very bad calligraphy. It gives an expression the person could not place "tenten" appropriately for the life of it.